Has Donald Trump absolute immunity that prevents him from being tried criminally for actions he took during his presidency to try reverse legitimate results of the elections he lost? That is what the former president and his team of lawyers argue. It is a theory that provokes intense legal debate. At the moment It does not seem that it will have the support of the courts and that has meant that this Tuesday Trump has shaken off the ghosts of it being unleashed “the chaos in the country” and don’t rule out violence if the charges against him move forward and damage his 2024 candidacy.
Federal Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding in Washington over the case brought against Trump by special prosecutor Jack Smith for those efforts to prevent the certification of Joe Biden (one of the four criminal cases facing the favorite for the Republican nomination for 2024) has already rejected the immunity thesis in December, suggesting that Trump was seeking equip himself with the powers of a monarch.
Trump appealed and although Smith tried to skip that part of the process by going directly to the Supreme Court, the latter refused to go ahead of the lower courts and returned the case to the corresponding court for appeal, the TCourt of Appeals of the District of Columbia. There, before a panel of three judges, a 75 minute view this Tuesday, in which Trump himself was voluntarily present and where the skepticism shown by the magistrates when questioning his lawyer points to a decision against him.
It is something that Trump could also appeal to and that could end up reaching the Supreme Court, but it has led him to speak in a press appearance again after Tuesday’s court session. no evidence of politically motivated persecution to damage his candidacy for 2024. “It’s the way they (the Democrats) are going to try to win. “It will be chaos,” he said, leaving without answering a question that urged him to rule out violence on the part of his followers.
Arguments and skepticism
Both the two judges on the panel appointed by Democratic President Biden and the veteran who was appointed by Republican George HW Bush have harshly questioned John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer. He has defended that the former president has absolute immunity for actions he took as chief executive, even if it was trying to reverse legitimate results (they argue that he was convinced that the elections were affected by fraud and irregularities, even though those problems have been discredited). He has also insisted that he could only be charged if he had been subjected to a impeachment and condemned in the political trial for the same reasons and has warned that there is no precedent to criminally try an occupant of the Oval Office.
These lines of argument have been challenged by the judges. The one appointed by Bush, for example, has considered “paradoxical say that their constitutional duty to Ensuring that laws are faithfully followed allows you to violate criminal law”. And he has also recalled that never before has a president been tried in criminal proceedings because Never before had one been charged.
Another judge has repeatedly raised Whether a president who gave the official order to a SEAL team to kill a political rival could be prosecuted for that act, to which Trump’s lawyer has ended up responding that only if he had been convicted of it in an impeachment (something that undermines the thesis of absolute immunity).
James Pearce, who has represented the special prosecutor, who defends that Trump acted as a private citizen, has warned that the interpretation of immunity advanced by the former president and his lawyers is “incorrect and terrifying.”
“Pandora’s Box”
Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, has also assured that not giving him immunity “would open a Pandora’s box from which the nation may never recover.” “If a president has to look over his shoulder every time he or she has to make a controversial decision that will inevitably will limit his ability to be president”, he warned.
Sauer has given as an example that George Bush could have been charged with lying to Congress to gain support for the war from Iraq, Barack Obama by killing US citizens in drone strikes abroad or Biden could be by a Texas prosecutor who accuses him of poorly manage the border. Trump, in his appearance before the press, has repeated the idea, pointing only to Obama.
The appeals court’s decision could come as early as this Wednesday. If Trump loses, it is a given that he will appeal. It remains up in the air how the trial calendar could be affected by the case, which is now paralyzed, but was due to begin on March 4, on the eve of the ‘Super Tuesday’ of primaries. And he continues for now campaigning with his legal via crucis.
Related news